-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Robb
[mailto:gor@lsc.co.uk]
Sent: 02 September 2004 07:33
To: Tim Turner (Offsite); 'Tom
Hendrix E-mail'
Cc: 'Robert M Mcbride E-mail';
'Plcs E-mail'
Subject: Comments on DEX 8 -
Overview - V3
Just had a look at V3 of your overview.
In the Product Configuration block - why
is their a requirement to utilise C068 as well as C067
[Tim Turner:] Good point gordon, given all
of C068 will be present in C067, and that the latter is surely a requirement, I
agree we do not need the former to be specified also.
In the Information Management block - C074
should be replaced with C016 (Representing instead of referencing person_org)
[Tim Turner:] Ok
The Manufacturing, test & inspection
records block should be changed to Documentation of Product (common
generic approach as per DEX 1) - also C011 and C075 are not required.
[Tim Turner:] Ok - title now
consistent. I was assuming that C011 was also being used for in-service
inspection/testing as well as design - but the capability only refers to the
design (part) not to individual. Deleted.
The Identification of Design
block would benefit from being retitled View of Prod Structure (this is in
alignment with DEX 1)
[Tim Turner:] Well I would rather
keep "Identification" or "Referencing" the Design, as this
is the functionality that the capabilties are providing here rather
than the representation of a view.
The use of C008 Referencing Part or Slot -
is this still valid as you have split the 'representing' equivalent C002
into 2 caps (parts retaining the 002 id and currently slots is 0XX)
[Tim Turner:] This is fine. However, we I
need to raise an issue on C008 to use C087 (Slots) - only Parts is related at present.
The Product Structure block would
benefit from being retitled Product Individual.
[Tim Turner:] Can I suggest we name it View
of Product Individual?
The scope statement for the Dex states
that breakdown of individuals are required, so I assume that we need to
add C004, right?
The 'Environment' block is not required.
[Tim Turner:] Ok - removed.
Should the requirement to record
non-feedback usage (observed states) & location of the realized product
also be removed from the scope statement since these are handled elsewhere?
he 'Transmission of the product
data' block requires retitling to 'Transmission of the Product' (as per DEX 1)
[Tim Turner:] Ok - done
I am, obviously, trying to get the
nomenclature used within DEX 1 and 8 common as near as possible.
[Tim Turner:] Yes - I also had that in
mind, those sections for Dex 1 were derived from the need to bring order to the
capability usage within the Dex based upon their functionality.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Tim turner
[mailto:timturner11@bellsouth.net]
Sent: 01 September 2004 04:57
To: timturner11@bellsouth.net;
'Tom Hendrix E-mail'
Cc: 'Robert M Mcbride E-mail';
'Plcs E-mail'
Subject: [plcs] New DEX 8 -
Overview - V3
Attached is the latest Dex8 overview offering.
Dex 8 has a requirement to be able to
represent usage and maintenance history.
At present I have interpreted
maintenance history to be a set of representing_work_done. This is obviously
done with respect to the scheme that has been devised for the product, though
this is not necessarily the same thing (i.e. scheme is not providing a record
of what *has* been done). The Introduction of this capability
(representing_work_done) states "The purpose of the
"Representing work done" capability is to describe how a record of
work that has been done can be represented. Examples of work done are:
- a maintenance task performed on some equipment;
- change made to some equipment in accordance with
a technical bulletin.
Thus, I believe that this and it's
dependant capabilities should suffice. Note this subsumes several other
dependant capabilities.
With respect to the recording of
usage, what are the other items (other than covered in feedback) that are
required for this? Les, Gordon - any thoughts? I noted from Mike's earlier
diagram that 2 capabilities are now no longer available (C025-Assigning Observation & C033-Representing Product Usage ) - have they
been overtaken by others?
New items (dependant) on the overview have
been circled - I had missed analysis result.
Again any feedback appreciated!
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Turner
[mailto:timturner11@bellsouth.net]
Sent: 31 August 2004 09:30
To: timturner11@bellsouth.net;
john.dunford@eurostep.com; 'Tom Hendrix E-mail'
Cc: 'Robert M Mcbride E-mail';
'Plcs E-mail'
Subject: [plcs] New DEX 8 -
Overview
attached is a re-work of the Dex 8
overview for comment.
I think it still needs a little more work,
but I'd value further comments on this.
Note, I have generated this from the
Introduction where thee functional heading have come from (except for the
generic parts).
DISCLAIMER: ***SECURITY LABEL: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED*** The
information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It
is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is
unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in
reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact
the sender if you have received this message in error. This e-mail originates
from LSC Group. Registered in England & Wales No 2275471 Registered Office:
Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG